12496 réponses à ce sujet

[Chari]

Plus, the Rivalmeter was an attempt to correct the lack of gray that resulted from a straight Approval/Disapproval meter, like in DAO, without abandoning companion feedback, a la Mass Effect. So not only were they rushed for time, they were also implementing a new parameter for relationships (which did result in them being different in several small and not small ways, which took even more resources and contributed to the fact that every aspect of the romances felt less substantial).

The system was a mess. You either had to act like a complete douche or the best friend. No middle ground. Not to mention that some rivalries felt almost abusive, or nonsentical: you put a person down, critisize everything they believe in... And they become your loyal followers or even lovers. Wat? Also, no possible to get rid of them even if you go against their beliefs (supporting slavers, templars or mages)
DAO wasn't perfect, but at least it had an approach of combinability: if a character doesn't like your choices, your opinion, logically they don't like you as a result. Just, ya know, like most relationships and friendships work

[Nocte ad Mortem]

Well, and not only that but the romances did differ on gender. There were different discussions in DA2, like Merrill being worried about having a child with Male Hawke but not with Female Hawke. 

To be honest, I don't really want gender variance in LIs. I don't really think the difference so far were great. Anders leaving out his history to females was a bad choice, imo. I also really don't like the straight romance = talk about babies trend. I don't think gender differences in LI conversation make the relationship "deeper" and I don't think they're even particularly beneficial for realism. Most bisexual people I know do not act especially different when in a relationship with someone of a different gender.       

[Nocte ad Mortem]

Time skips and the rivalry system aren't relevant to the issue we were discussing, which is gender gating. If you want to debate those issues, that's totally fine and it's definitely on topic here. Let's just be intellectually honest that you're discussing something completely unrelated to gender gating and that it doesn't in any way support the new gender gating system. 

[Hanako Ikezawa]

To be honest, I don't really want gender variance in LIs. I don't really think the difference so far were great. Anders leaving out his history to females was a bad choice, imo. I also really don't like the straight romance = talk about babies trend. I don't think gender differences in LI conversation make the relationship "deeper" and I don't think they're even particularly beneficial for realism. Most bisexual people I know do not act especially different when in a relationship with someone of a different gender.       

I was just pointing out that those existed to counter the "doesn't act differently to player's gender" thing. 

[Ianamus]

The system was a mess. You either had to act like a complete douche or the best friend. No middle ground. Not to mention that some rivalries felt almost abusive, or nonsentical: you put a person down, critisize everything they believe in... And they become your loyal followers or even lovers. Wat? Also, no possible to get rid of them even if you go against their beliefs (supporting slavers, templars or mages)
DAO wasn't perfect, but at least it had an approach of combinability: if a character doesn't like your choices, your opinion, logically they don't like you as a result. Just, ya know, like most relationships and friendships work

 

The Rivalry systems biggest flaw was including DA:O style 'dislike' in with Rivalry. 

 

Rivalry should have been "I like you but I think your hurting yourself/ not doing whats best", and it was to an extent, but they also threw every offensive remark and blatant hatred into rivalry, which made it feel juxtaposed. "Fenris you need to let go of your anger and rage because they are hurting you- oh meet my new slave Orana". 

[Hanako Ikezawa]

The Rivalry systems biggest flaw was including DA:O style 'dislike' in with Rivalry. 

 

Rivalry should have been "I like you but I think your hurting yourself/ not doing whats best", and it was to an extent, but they also threw every offensive remark into  rivalry, which made it feel juxtaposed. "Fenris you need to let go of your anger and rage because they are hurting you, oh meet my new slave Orana". 

Speaking of Orana, I have to say that was my favorite encounter with Fenris. 

 

Fenris: "I didn't realize you were in the business of taking slaves." 

Hawke: "I was offering her a job."

Fenris: "Oh, I see. Um...that is acceptable." 

[Chari]

Speaking of Orana, I have to say that was my favorite encounter with Fenris.

Fenris: "I didn't realize you were in the business of taking slaves."
Hawke: "I was offering her a job."
Fenris: "Oh, I see. Um...that is acceptable."

You can keep her as a slave. And still romance Fenris

[Chari]

The Rivalry systems biggest flaw was including DA:O style 'dislike' in with Rivalry.

Rivalry should have been "I like you but I think your hurting yourself/ not doing whats best", and it was to an extent, but they also threw every offensive remark and blatant hatred into rivalry, which made it feel juxtaposed. "Fenris you need to let go of your anger and rage because they are hurting you- oh meet my new slave Orana".

True. Rivalmancing Anders while supporting templars feels like a cruel sadistic joke

[Ianamus]

True. Rivalmancing Anders while supporting templars feels like a cruel sadistic joke

 

I've never understood Anders rivalry romance. Isabela's makes sense because you want her to embrace the less roguish side of herself. Fenris's makes sense because you are trying to make him let go of the past and accept that not all mages are magisters, and Merrill's makes sense in that you can see her blood magic and obsession with the mirror as harmful to her.

 

But Anders? I don't get it. You obviously don't think mages should be completely free because they are dangerous, yet you're in a relationship with an abomination. 

 

I was roleplaying a Hawke who was wary of mages and leant towards the templars, trying to do a playthrough where I would make Anders full rivalry and force him to fight against the mages, but after he almost killed the female mage in Act 2 I had to kick him out of the group, because letting him stay with you made absolutely no sense from a role playing perspective at that point, let alone a romance.

 

He almost killed an innocent person, or potentially did kill an innocent person. If you think mages are dangerous and probably best kept in the circle why would you allow him to remain free after that?! I'm still annoyed there is no option to call the templars then and then- particularly if he actually kills her. 

[Hanako Ikezawa]

You can keep her as a slave. And still romance Fenris

I know. But I never do. 

 

What does that have to do with my post? 

[Chari]

I've never understood Anders rivalry romance. Isabela's makes sense because you want her to embrace the less roguish side of herself. Fenris's makes sense because you are trying to make him let go of the past and accept that not all mages are magisters, and Merrill's makes sense in that you can see her blood magic and obsession with the mirror as harmful to her.

But Anders? I don't get it. You obviously don't think mages should be completely free because they are dangerous, yet you're in a relationship with an abomination.

I was roleplaying a Hawke who was wary of mages and leant towards the templars, trying to do a playthrough where I would make Anders full rivalry and force him to fight against the mages, but after he almost killed the female mage in Act 2 I had to kick him out of the group, because letting him stay with you made absolutely no sense.

He almost killed someone. If you think mages are dangerous and probably best kept in the circle why would you allow him to remain free after that?! I'm still annoyed there is no option to call the templars then and then- particularly if he actually kills her.

Not being able to kick out party members till the end was a huge minus IMHO
Like you mentioned Anders. Or Fenris and Sebastian if you're ultra pro-mage. Merrill if you hate blood magic. Etc.
So you just have to pretend that your Hawke cares and think of them as friends even if logically she doesn't. And still for some reason she helps to solve their problems...

[Chari]

I know. But I never do.

What does that have to do with my post?

Well, in case you didn't.
Plus, another example why the system was broken

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Well, in case you didn't.
Plus, another example why the system was broken

I don't think anyone here is arguing that the Rivalmance system didn't have issues. 

[Nocte ad Mortem]

He almost killed someone. If you think mages are dangerous and probably best kept in the circle why would you allow him to remain free after that?! I'm still annoyed there is no option to call the templars then and then- particularly if he actually kills her. 

I actually don't like the rivalry system, myself. I think it's largely unrealistic that these people would still follow you after you blatantly work against their most hard set beliefs at every corner. Even with the few breaking points some have, I think it's largely unreasonable.

 

I think stuff like what you're suggesting is still unlikely, though, because they still have to work player choice into a linear story. The fact is, we have to sacrifice some player choice for a deeply developed story. It's either let some go, or accept the story will be as thin as something like Skyrim. Anders couldn't be caught (at least not for long) or killed by the templars, or by you, because it would end the story as they meant it to transpire. There's also just the fact that they don't have the resources to depict every possible choice the PC might want to make. 

 

So, I agree that rivalry could have been handled better, not even just from a romance perspective. However, there are always going to be limits. It's just a necessity with the medium. 

[Chari]

I don't think anyone here is arguing that the Rivalmance system didn't have issues.

Yeah, just like almost everything else in DA2. Too rushed

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Yeah, just almost everything else in DA2. Too rushed

Isn't Bioware going to have two bars now? One for Friendship/Rivalry and another for Approval/Disapproval? 

[Chari]

Isn't Bioware going to have two bars now? One for Friendship/Rivalry and another for Approval/Disapproval?

Nah. They said this time it will be more dependant on choices of actions and dialogue lines rather than points
I approve

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Nah. They said this time it will be more dependant on choices of actions and dialogue lines rather than points
I approve

Ah, ok. I must be thinking of when hey hadn't decided yet. 

 

And yeah, I like event-based romances more than approval point-based ones as well.

[Chari]

Ah, ok. I must be thinking of when hey hadn't decided yet.

And yeah, I like event-based romances more than approval point-based ones as well.

I kinda miss old trick of giving Oghren every piece of junk so his approval become high enough for a personal quest cause I recruit him last
I wonder what he did to all that jewelry and maps

[CENIC]

Nah. They said this time it will be more dependant on choices of actions and dialogue lines rather than points
I approve

I'm really looking forward to this!
While I appreciated that DA2 let me have a relationship with a character even if our ideals clashed, I don't think it was handled as well as it could have been. There should have been more crisis points where your partner would end the relationship (or where YOU could) because of differing viewpoints.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

I kinda miss old trick of giving Oghren every piece of junk so his approval become high enough for a personal quest cause I recruit him last
I wonder what he did to all that jewelry and maps

Or all the bones. I mean, they are for Dog but Dog never leaves 100% approval. 

[renfrees]

Not being able to kick out party members till the end was a huge minus IMHO
Like you mentioned Anders. Or Fenris and Sebastian if you're ultra pro-mage. Merrill if you hate blood magic. Etc.
So you just have to pretend that your Hawke cares and think of them as friends even if logically she doesn't. And still for some reason she helps to solve their problems...

You couldn't kick only Merrill and Sebastian, every other romance option had their breaking points, so that's not particularly true.

And you didn't have to pretend to care about them. Beside some mandatory recruitment quests (in case of Anders and Merrill), the rest of their problems could be skipped if you didn't want to help them. Not even talking about optional recruitment for half of LIs.

[Chari]

Or all the bones. I mean, they are for Dog but Dog never leaves 100% approval.

Well, he ate and drunk worse than that. Probably made a good soup

[Nocte ad Mortem]

Or all the bones. I mean, they are for Dog but Dog never leaves 100% approval. 

Noooo. Dogs bones are for dog. Poor dog. 

[Chari]

You couldn't kick only Merrill and Sebastian, every other romance option had their breaking points, so that's not particularly true.
And you didn't have to pretend to care about them. Beside some mandatory recruitment quests (in case of Anders and Merrill), the rest of their problems could be skipped if you didn't want to help them. Not even talking about optional recruitment for half of LIs.

Too late in the game itself. I don't see why Hawke would work with people she clashes with for seven-four years
And I am talking about Merrill and Anders. And probably Fenris, I am not sure you can skip his quests